Questions that go beyond the passage in RC (most analogous, most strengthens, most weakens) are tough, because our normal standards of proof (in the passage vs. not in the passage) don't apply the same way. Instead, we're normally forced to consider what detail/sentence/slogan from the passage the a...

Nice dissection and good questions. It seems like you were thinking of this question stem as "Sufficient Assumption", because you predicted the missing link we would need. However, John's statements are not an argument. On this test, it's important to know the difference between argument/r...

Even though Resolve/Explain questions are normally pretty straightforward, Resolve/Explain EXCEPT questions are often very hard! (plus this is a #17, so it's in the hardest part of an LR section) The initial paradox was 24-year study makes it look like beta-carotene helps lower risk of cancer YET 12...

What does the Question Stem tell us? Inference (Must be true) Break down the Stimulus: Scanning for Conditional / Causal / Comparative / Quantitative claims. There is a 'many', a 'not all', and a 'some'. None of those can combine to make a quantity inference. The last sentence is a conditional: Not...

You hit the nail on the head. In (A), we have no proof that 'these systems have met the original expectations of computer specialists'. Perhaps the closest match in the passage that we have for 'original expectations' is line 10, but it says that these systems have 'fallen short of optimistic early ...

Good question. The answer: "because" "Because" indicates a premise, which means whatever idea it is supporting is some sort of conclusion (either the main conclusion or a subsidiary conclusion). When LSAT is testing us on conditional logic, it has to give us some trigger words to...

A lot of people get confused by this passage. I'll try to distill the important moments into just a handful of line references to simplify the overall point/purpose. Remember in RC to be reading mainly for the moments of the passage that - switch from background information to the primary focus of t...

I think you were real close with the scale, but not as clear as I'd love to see when it came to the role of the examples. The scale is: Prosperity (defined in terms of monetary value) --- the conventional view vs. Prosperity (defined in terms that also include quality of life indicators) ---- the au...

If we go back to Aileen's analogous argument: If society routinely permits vehicles to exceed the speed limits, we will all suffer. Therefore if we permit ambulances to speed, we will all suffer. Let's make the conclusion more identical to the Q22's conclusion. If society routinely permits vehicles ...

You're basically correct in your thinking, but I would caution you against trying to symbolize all these claims conditionally. Cynthia's claim: Hitting the pothole caused my trunk to open you could represent that as HP --> TO, but she's not actually saying something so universal as "Whenever...

We would get our support for choice (B) from lines 48-53. Within this 3rd paragraph, the author is listing the reasons he thinks family mediation is a better option for resolving family disputes than is court adjudication. One reason listed is that family mediation involves the two disputing parties...

This is truly an oddball question, because it's one of the only times I've ever seen an LSAT question attack the truth of a premise. What Gilad was saying is true, in the sense that in every argument the author is assuming his premises are valid. However, as LSAT testtakers, that's basically never o...

True dat. This is a wordy law passage, and a wordy question stem. You nailed the window of proof: 3rd paragraph (leading with that lovely signpost, "UNFORTUNATELY") is where we begin the author's negative assessment of the uplift fee recommendations. I think there were some keywords in the...

Great explanation. My only caveat is when you wrote: P comes along and points out that there could only be two reasons to write something down: (1) you don't already know it and/or (2) to transmit it to other people. I just want to caution that P didn't actually say those were the ONLY two reasons f...

This is a TOUGH nut to crack. When we do Match the Flaw, we want to first understand the nature of the original flaw, as well as characterize the type of ingredients in the argument. The original argument concluded C: ppl shouldn't be legally required to wear seatbelts in cars because P: ppl aren't ...

I think you just read the answer key wrong. C is the correct answer to #7, section 1, test 60. Your instincts were correct to like C. The conclusion was that "Cancer-patient support groups may have genuine therapeutic value." What did the evidence ever tell us about 'cancer-patient support...

Great explanation. You really used your understanding of the nuanced meaning in the premise, both to identify how the correct answer cemented together the argument and how choice (A) still left wiggle room for doubting the conclusion, thereby making it incorrect. When I was first introduced to LSAT,...

Since you both nailed the stimulus and the correct answer, I'll just play clean-up duty and discuss the wrong answers. For these Matching problems, one shortcut you can often use is to focus on the Conclusion of the original. The correct answer has to have a conclusion of its own that matches the ty...

I wholeheartedly agree that (C) is supported by lines 39-43. You can throw in the earlier line reference about binding vs. non-binding decisions, but I don't think it's super relevant to supporting (C). And, yes, (E) is wrong purely because of the word "should". Whenever you see "shou...

Nice response! I concur. Although it's great to be skeptical about language shifts and detail creeps, I think we can all accept that "radically modifying our agricultural techniques" is 98% the same as "abandoning conventional agriculture". Radical and conventional are opposites,...